...the time is fast approaching when chiropractic will have to decide whether it isinformed by 19th century metaphysics or by 21st century science. If it chooses wrongly, then it may not be possible for all the king’s horses and all the king’s men to effect a repair.

Perhaps I have been extremely lucky. I found the BEST Chiropractor in OH. Unfortunately, I had to go through about five of the worst before finding Dr. Mike. I was in so much pain for about six months after I had a head on collision with my little car. All I wanted was for my head to feel like it was on a neck. Anyone having this pain knows exactly what I mean. I couldn't turn right or left, look up or down without some nasty pain. I finally gave in to the people I worked with and went to see Dr. Mike. To make a long story short, I left there in NO Pain! I continued to turn my body to look right or left because for the first time in months I was pain free and wanted to keep it that way. When I finally did start to move my head it was heaven. ~~again anyone experiencing this pain knows what I mean. So to sum up what is wrong with chiropractors.......Nothing If you get a good one, Everything if you do not.

Wojo wrote:... So to sum up what is wrong with chiropractors.......Nothing If you get a good one, Everything if you do not.

Well, this has been a long thread and you probably missed all that is really wrong with chiros. The conclusions I have drawn are based on studies, often scientific research. You offer an anecdote, science only considers them useful for beginning an appropriate study- not forming conclusions such as yours.

Your particular case may be instructive. If your chiro twisted your neck, he probably put you at risk (a very small, but real, risk) of having a stroke that could paralyze or kill you (the evidence is cited all over the preceding pages). You must ask yourself if you were prepared to die for relief from a neck ache. Also, you don't know, because yours is an anecdote, whether finding the right masseuse would have been as effective- with less risk of a stroke. Moreover, you don't know if the problem was on the verge of disappearing on its own.

Only controlled experiments can provide clues, and such experiments routinely show that chiro is no better for anything than medical procedures (except backache, where chiro might be as good). And for everything else (including neck aches) chiro is inferior (to the point of being useless) compared to safer methods.

I see your point. I don't know who performed the controlled experiments of which you speak and quite frankly, I don't see how controlled experiments can even be made with this regard as pain is subjective. I do know on my limited scale, that I received immediate relief from pain from this one Chiro. Relief that four MD's and three other Chiros could not give me. I'm not saying a Chiropractor can cure all, just as I would not say a Gastroenterologist can cure all. However, from my experiences and those of family and friends, in their field, they "can be" not only safer, but even better than an MD. Additionally, you are correct in that I did not read all that has been written here about chiros. I am a Newbie, as you may already know, and I can imagine your frustration with such people who come in half way through a conversation. For this I apologize. Thank you JJM for the conversation. I look forward to catching up!

Wojo wrote:... I do know on my limited scale, that I received immediate relief from pain from this one Chiro. Relief that four MD's and three other Chiros could not give me. ...

You might have gotten the same from a masseur; who costs less and is less likely to kill you. The bottom line is that most chiros are masseurs with delusions of grandeur. Acccording to their own survey, 90% of them still believe in the fictitious "chiropractic subluxations" and, in my experience, many of the remaining 10% sort-of believe, or simply use a different term.

As for immediate relief, there are anecdotes about immediate relief from no treatment at all. One fellow has a story about long-term ringing in his ears (tinnitus) and finally going to a doctor. The doctor casually suggested waiting a little longer before treatment, and that it might be a brain tumor. Driving home, the guy realized the ringing was gone, and it has not returned in years.

A call has been made for the closure of the Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology (RMIT) Chiropractic Paediatric clinic for “teaching inappropriate and potentially dangerous techniques that target pregnant women, babies, infants and children”.

It includes expert opinion from high profile and well-regarded Professors of Medicine relating to supposed efficacy of chiropractic; identifies the claims made by lecturers and graduates from RMIT and other chiropractic teaching institutions; identifies the relevant codes of conduct that are breached by graduates; identifies research relating to spinal manipulation on a wide range of health conditions; refers to the General Chiropractic Council (UK) on comments on ‘subluxations’ and evidence-based practices; refers to the HCCC anti-vaccination campaign, which is supported by over 120 chiropractors; refers to a recent US-based court case which limits chiropractic diagnoses to biomechanical conditions of the spine and musculoskeletal system; and recommends that the competency and education standards for chiropractors be reviewed.

Wojo wrote:I see your point. I don't know who performed the controlled experiments of which you speak and quite frankly, I don't see how controlled experiments can even be made with this regard as pain is subjective. I do know on my limited scale, that I received immediate relief from pain from this one Chiro. Relief that four MD's and three other Chiros could not give me. I'm not saying a Chiropractor can cure all, just as I would not say a Gastroenterologist can cure all. However, from my experiences and those of family and friends, in their field, they "can be" not only safer, but even better than an MD. Additionally, you are correct in that I did not read all that has been written here about chiros. I am a Newbie, as you may already know, and I can imagine your frustration with such people who come in half way through a conversation. For this I apologize. Thank you JJM for the conversation. I look forward to catching up!

So your success rate on chiros is one out of four? Just FYI, that wouldn't add up to any statistical proof that they do anything. Even placebos get higher success rates than that. A more likely explanation is that you did a lot of looking around and after eight tries, the problem finally started to go away on its own.

I used to run a group of about 500 chiropractors. The person above who said the key is to just ask them to explain their "science" is right. There is no science behind chiropractic and the vast majority of them aren't even interested in science as individuals. They are far more likely to latch on to the latest fad treatment without any evidence that it works. Going to a meeting of chiropractors invariably meant talking about a whole bunch of new quack treatments that sounded good but were dubious, to say the least.

I have a doctor friend, who is now a good skeptic. He had a time when he did a cross over course to become a qualified chiropractor. He practised as both doctor and chiropractor for some time till he made a little discovery. He found that every chiropractic manipulation worked equally well for every patient who demanded it. He soon came to the conclusion that chiropracty was pure placebo.

I only read the first few pages of this thread. I think we should have started by defining more clearly what we are skeptical about, so that there didn't have to be pages of confusion.

SMT (spinal manipulative therapy) has been done for thousands of years. It has merit concerning back issues perhaps. And, chiropractors are the ones that do SMT the most, and are the most trained in it, although other professions do it as well.

But, SMT isn't in dispute here. So, for the people who say they went to a chiropractor and felt better, sure, fine. Maybe you did. Maybe it is all in your head. Probably some of each.

But, on the issue of what's wrong with chiropractors, I think the focus is:

--Subluxation--The origins, including palmers vitalism, and chi or Qi or ki type energy or "inate intelligence" according to him, that runs through the body. --Palmer originally basing his ideas on the "inspiration" from a dead dr (Atkinson) who appears to be the one who gave him this special knowledge. (Palmer frequented the Mississipi Spiritualist Camp and lived within walking distance, and seances were common there.)--Palmers later story about Lillaird, who he cured of (partial) deafness, a story which doesn't match Lilliards daughter. But either way, this reminds me of how televangelists "cure" (partially) deaf people or people who are (partially) blind. Palmer later focused on this story and spoke less and less of The dead Dr's inspiration. --Palmer was doing animal magnetism for decades before coming up with chiropractic therapy. (Waving your hands over people and shaking them as if you are pulling energy off the person and shaking it off your hands).

So, yes, you can go to a chiropractor and feel better. You can also wear a magnet and feel better. You can do almost anything and feel better if you BELIEVE it works. Feelings are subjective and PLACEBOS work. And SMT works on backs. Do not confuse SMT (a part of chiropractic therapy) with chiropractic therapy as a whole!!! This causes confusion.

The theory, philosophy, mysticism, vitalism, and fraudulent ORIGENS of chiropractic are as outlined above.

Get rid of them, and we are left with SMT, which is primarily what chiropractors do anyway.

Purpose — Cervical artery dissections (CDs) are among the most common causes of stroke in young and middle-aged adults. The aim of this scientific statement is to review the current state of evidence on the diagnosis and management of CDs and their statistical association with cervical manipulative therapy (CMT)....

Results — ...Although the role of trivial trauma is debatable, mechanical forces can lead to intimal injuries of the vertebral arteries and internal carotid arteries and result in CD....

Conclusions — ...Although current biomechanical evidence is insufficient to establish the claim that CMT causes CD, clinical reports suggest that mechanical forces play a role in a considerable number of CDs and most population controlled studies have found an association between CMT and VAD stroke in young patients. Although the incidence of CMT-associated CD in patients who have previously received CMT is not well established, and probably low, practitioners should strongly consider the possibility of CD as a presenting symptom, and patients should be informed of the statistical association between CD and CMT prior to undergoing manipulation of the cervical spine.